J-S36007-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JERMAINE WILLIAMS
Appellant No. 2392 EDA 2016
Appeal from the PCRA Order June 28, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0403571-1996
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
In 1997, a jury convicted Appellant, Jermaine Williams, of first-degree
murder arising from the shooting death of Kenneth Billie. During the trial,
Williams conceded that he had killed Billie, but argued that he had acted in
self-defense. Currently before us is his third petition for relief pursuant to
the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) that the Court of Common Pleas
dismissed as untimely. As we agree with the PCRA court’s conclusion that
Williams did not successfully invoke the newly discovered evidence exception
to the PCRA’s time-bar, we affirm.
Williams implicitly concedes that the instant petition, filed over 14
years after his judgment of sentence became final, is facially untimely. See
J-S36007-17
Appellant’s Brief, at 5.1 However, he argues that his recent “discovery” of a
document is newly discovered evidence that entitles him to an exception to
the PCRA’s time bar.
Williams highlights a police officer’s testimony about the lack of
fingerprints on a firearm found at the crime scene. This testimony undercut
Williams’s theory that Billie brandished a firearm before he shot Billie. The
relevant document that Williams has just discovered is the Philadelphia
Police Department fingerprint analysis policy that was in effect at the time of
the investigation into the killing of Billie. He argues that the policy
demonstrates that the officer perjured himself when testifying to the method
he used to determine that there were no fingerprints on the firearm.
In order to establish that he is entitled to an exception to the PCRA’s
time bar under § 9545(b)(1)(ii), Williams must establish that the facts upon
which the claim are predicated were unknown to him, and that he could not
have ascertained the facts earlier despite the exercise of due diligence. See
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1272 (Pa. 2007). A petitioner
asserting a timeliness exception must file a petition within 60 days of the
date the claim could have been presented. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(2).
____________________________________________
1
Williams’s judgment of sentence became final on April 8, 2001. See
Commonwealth v. Williams, 3087 EDA 2008, at 5 (Pa. Super., filed
October 27, 2009) (unpublished memorandum).
-2-
J-S36007-17
Williams’s belief that the officer committed perjury has a long history.
See Williams, 3087 EDA 2008, at 6 (noting that Williams first challenged
the officer’s testimony in a March 29, 2004 letter). Indeed, we affirmed the
dismissal of Williams’s second PCRA petition, filed in 2007, which raised the
issue of the alleged perjury, by concluding that Williams had not established
that he had exercised due diligence in pursuing this claim. See id., at 8. An
additional eight years of delay has not mitigated this defect.
This avenue of investigation was available to Williams in 2004. To
establish due diligence, he was required to prove that he could not have
possibly obtained the fingerprint policy prior to when he did. This he has not
done. We therefore affirm the order dismissing his third PCRA petition as
untimely.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/15/2017
-3-
Com. v. Williams, J.
Combined Opinion